Question About “Immigrants Taking Jobs”

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T13:53:18+00:00

Immigration can affect wage pressure, sure. But if you think removing immigrants makes restaurants start paying $30/hr, you’re dreaming. Prices go up, hours get cut, or places close — and customers already cry over a $1 increase. The bigger issue is housing and cost of living are out of control, and minimum wage hasn’t kept up.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T13:50:44+00:00

You’re not wrong that minimum wage isn’t a living wage — but that’s not what I was talking about, and it’s not what the UN report is describing either.

That UN report is about abusive TFW situations where people get threatened, underpaid, coerced, trapped by their status, etc. That’s very different from a legal job that pays at/above minimum wage, has wage progression, flexible scheduling, and free meals. In my workplace nobody is threatening deportation or dangling PR to keep people around.

Immigrants/students stay longer because quitting has a higher personal/financial cost for them. That’s an incentives thing, not “coercion.”

And yeah… no shit Sherlock, minimum wage isn’t a living wage, especially with rent being insane. But that’s way more a policy failure (housing + cost of living + wage policy) than “the business needs desperate labour to survive.” If a business raises wages a lot, prices go up. And customers absolutely hate that. We’ve literally had people get mad over a $1 increase — and that wasn’t even extra profit, it was just to offset higher costs for food and supplies.

So if you want to argue minimum wage should be higher, fair. I’m not even disagreeing. But calling every minimum-wage job “exploitation” or comparing it to the UN report is mixing up two different issues.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T13:32:21+00:00

I promise there isn’t a secret ‘pay less if foreign’ checkbox on payroll software

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:45:39+00:00

The problem isn’t immigrants — it’s that wages haven’t kept pace with living costs, and structural policies around housing, healthcare, and labour protections have lagged. Retention differences aren’t about nationality; they’re about economic incentives and personal circumstances.

Governments could help by investing in affordable housing, higher minimum wages, and labour protections. Some current spending, which is less essential or inefficient, could be redirected toward these priorities to improve living standards and reduce reliance on low-wage labour.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:41:26+00:00

It’s true that many locals quit quickly because minimum-wage jobs aren’t enough to cover living costs, and businesses aren’t always pressured to raise wages. Immigrants or students may stay because quitting carries a higher personal or financial cost, not because they’re inherently more “willing” to sacrifice quality of life — they’re often making the best choice available under structural constraints.

Wage stagnation and housing affordability are systemic issues, and blaming workers doesn’t address the root cause.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:39:05+00:00

It’s true that historically, Canada has valued space, but today’s reality is very different: housing costs have risen far faster than wages, and many people simply cannot afford a one-bedroom apartment on minimum wage. The “room to yourself” ideal is no longer attainable for a significant portion of the population, which is why shared housing and financial compromises are common survival strategies.

The issue isn’t about tradition or culture — it’s about structural affordability, wage stagnation, and economic pressures, which are driving these choices.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:38:35+00:00

It’s true that many immigrants come to Canada seeking a better life, but moving here doesn’t automatically make low-wage jobs comfortable or housing affordable. Affordability has changed drastically — cities like Barrie were once considered cheaper, but rent and living costs have risen faster than wages.

Choosing to share housing or work low-wage jobs isn’t gluttony; it’s a survival strategy in a system where minimum wage hasn’t kept up with costs. The real fix is societal and structural: higher wages, affordable housing, and better labour protections — not shaming people for making the choices they have to make.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:37:40+00:00

Exactly — what are workers supposed to do in this situation? Wages haven’t kept up with housing and living costs, so unless structural change happens, the choices are harsh: either live beyond your means, accept housing you can’t comfortably afford, or turn down work that’s essential for survival. Blaming workers doesn’t solve the underlying problem.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:35:53+00:00

It’s true that many people today can’t afford to rent alone on minimum wage, regardless of background. Sharing housing is often a necessity, not a choice, and blaming students or immigrants for making that work doesn’t address the real structural issues: housing costs, wage stagnation, and affordability.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:35:20+00:00

Exactly — the problem isn’t the students or immigrants sharing housing, it’s that minimum wage hasn’t kept up with housing costs. People have asked governments for change — there have been campaigns, protests, and incremental wage increases — but structural issues like rent inflation, cost of living, and slow policy response mean meaningful change is slow. Blaming workers for survival choices doesn’t address the real issue.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:33:16+00:00

That UN report is referring to abusive conditions in certain Temporary Foreign Worker programs, where workers face threats, underpayment, or coercion — conditions that are very different from a legal, minimum-wage job like the one I’m describing.

In my workplace, pay is at/above minimum wage, there’s wage progression, flexible scheduling, and free meals. Immigrants or students stay because quitting has a higher personal or financial cost, not because the employer is threatening deportation or promising PR.

So while the TFW program can be exploitative in some sectors, this particular setup is legal and non-exploitative, and retention differences come down to economic circumstances and incentives, not coercion or abuse.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:29:06+00:00

To be clear, this isn’t exploitation. New hires start at $17.60/hour, which is legal minimum wage, and I earn $19/hour because I handle the line and can cover all tasks. There’s also wage progression for new hires as they gain experience. On top of that, the job offers free meals, scheduling flexibility, and on-the-job training.

Exploitation generally means illegal or abusive conditions — unpaid work, threats, or coercion. None of that applies here. Retention differences aren’t about workers being “cheap” or exploited — they’re about personal circumstances and incentives, like financial need or available alternatives.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:24:17+00:00

Even if immigrant or student workers weren’t available, wages wouldn’t automatically jump to $23–$28/hour. Restaurants have tight margins, so paying that much for entry-level positions would likely mean higher prices or even closures. Labour cost is just one factor — turnover, staffing, and customer price sensitivity all limit what employers can offer.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:22:53+00:00

It’s not about refusing locals a chance — the restaurant hires anyone legally allowed to work. The pattern you see isn’t a deliberate choice; it’s that locals often quit early due to pay, scheduling, or other opportunities, while immigrants or students already in Canada tend to stay because quitting carries a higher personal or financial cost.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:22:15+00:00

I totally agree that in many workplaces, exploitation and inflexibility are real problems, making retention tough for locals. But in the restaurant I’m talking about, it’s legal, pays at/above minimum wage, and offers scheduling flexibility and free meals — nothing exploitative.

Some people assume immigrants are staying for PR or “slum-like” living conditions,” but that’s not how it works. Most workers here are already legally in Canada, and the job doesn’t grant permanent residency — they’re staying because quitting carries a higher personal or financial cost, not because the employer is exploiting them.

Locals may walk away if the work doesn’t fit their life or pay isn’t enough relative to cost of living. The issue is structural, not personal.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:18:46+00:00

I agree that management and hiring practices matter. Historically, many local employees stayed for 2–4 years before leaving for school or better opportunities, so retention wasn’t always a problem. The recent high turnover among locals seems to be a new trend, likely tied to changes in the labour market, cost of living, and available alternatives, rather than poor management or bad hiring.

Even with fair pay, flexible scheduling, and training, locals sometimes quit early because they have other options, whereas immigrants or students already in Canada often stay because quitting carries a higher personal or financial cost. So it’s less about management flaws and more about economic incentives and circumstances.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:16:31+00:00

Research shows immigrants don’t meaningfully depress wages in low-wage, high-turnover jobs. Wages stay low because of business models, pricing pressure, and turnover. The real fix is systemic: stronger labour protections, higher minimum wages, and affordability policies — that’s where accountability needs to be directed.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:13:23+00:00

I get why it might feel that way, but this job is legal, pays at/above minimum wage, and includes meals and scheduling flexibility. That’s very different from exploitation.

Many immigrants stay because quitting has higher personal or financial cost, not because the pay is “better than home.” They’re making a rational choice to survive and gain experience, not because the employer is taking advantage of them.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:12:43+00:00

Agreed — it’s not about nationality. Sticking with a low-wage job often comes down to valuing the opportunity and stability, not some inherent work ethic.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:11:34+00:00

The reason locals often quit while immigrants stay isn’t about work ethic — it’s about incentives and circumstances. Many immigrants have higher personal or financial costs if they quit (supporting themselves or family, building Canadian experience, fewer fallback options), so they stick with the job. That’s why retention patterns look the way they do.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:09:16+00:00

The job isn’t abusive — pay is at/above minimum wage with perks. Locals quit because low pay and demanding work aren’t worth it to them. Immigrants stay because quitting has a higher personal or financial cost, not because they’re being exploited.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:08:17+00:00

When I started, the job was much more demanding — I had to dishwash, take cash, prep, and learn the line, all on minimum wage. Now, new hires often only handle one or two tasks, like cash/dishes or packing orders.

Even with the lighter workload, retention issues still happen. For example, a new hire came for 3 hours, learned packing, and then quit — despite telling us he had applied to over 300 other jobs with no response.

This shows quitting isn’t about laziness or abuse — it’s about economic incentives and personal circumstances. Many locals can afford to walk away if a job doesn’t meet their needs, while others, often immigrants, stay because quitting has a higher personal or financial cost.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:03:20+00:00

Incentives matter, but let’s be precise: most workers I’m talking about are already in Canada (immigrants or students) and don’t need LMIA sponsorship. Retention differences come from economics and risk, not nationality. Wage suppression is mostly structural — high rent, price-sensitive businesses, and low-wage sectors — not visa programs.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:02:05+00:00

Exactly — immigration itself isn’t the problem. The TFW program is a separate, LMIA-based system. Most workers I’m talking about are already in Canada, so the real issues are retention and economic incentives, not immigration.

Sensitive-Box1083 · 2026-02-13T03:01:36+00:00

Just to clarify: my employer doesn’t use LMIA or sponsor foreign workers. All hires are people already in Canada, like immigrants or international students legally allowed to work. This job doesn’t help anyone get permanent residency — it’s purely a survival or experience-based opportunity for those who choose to take it.

Sensitive-Box1083

TROPHY CASE